Skip to main content

What Did James Clyburn Do During the House Recess?

By
Among other things (no doubt), House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) sat down with South Carolina Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Otis Rawl and discussed energy and economic issues. This exchange on CEO Corner jumped out,
Rawl: Do you think nuclear, in, from a national level, is a viable alternative?
Clyburn: It is. It absolutely is. All we have to do is to step up and make the case. I have been unabashed in my support for nuclear energy. That's about 54% of the energy we produce in this state. We don't consume all of that. We export some of it. But it is a very critical part of the economy in South Carolina. And I do believe that there's much more support in the Congress for nuclear being a significant part of the sources going forward. [Emphasis added.]
The entire interview can be seen here. (The nuclear nugget appears at the 3:05 mark.)


Labels:

Comments

Marcel F. Williams said…
James Clyburn is going to get a lot of heat from the extreme left for his support for more nuclear energy. So I think nuclear advocates should email the majority whip to show our support.
April 22, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Anonymous said…
Frank Hummel (retired Electrical Engineer from the St. Louis, Missouri area)

We now know how to build nuclear fission reactors in ways that are at least INTRINSICALLY IMMUNE TO ANY POSSIBILITY OF MELTDOWN a la Chernobyl in the Ukraine, or (almost) Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.

It is AT LEAST possible to fabricate “the pile" in such a way that the fissile material density simply is not so great that if there is a loss-of-coolant accident (or maybe attack?) the temperature in the core would "go to the moon". The most promising-sounding proposals along these lines involve encasing pieces of the uranium fuel in CARBIDE spheres about the size of billiard balls, instead of in the classic "fuel rod" assemblies. These are positioned in a HORIZONTALLY ORIENTED BED. The fissile material density is then MUCH LOWER, so that the TEMPERATURES that would be attained if the heat-exchange-fluid flow were to fail for any reason would be lower, so THE CONSEQUENCES WOULD NOT BE UTTERLY DISASTROUS!

And such a design ALSO has the advantage that REFUELING reactors can be accomplished on a “DISTRIBUTED” basis, by simply adding NEW "fuel balls" at the top of the bed while pulling out old ones off the bottom --- SO THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SHUT SYSTEMS DOWN COMPLETELY FOR MONTHS ON END IN ORDER TO GET THE JOB DONE!

Any NEW dinosaurs of the FISSION type that might be built should SURELY, at least, apply THESE concepts! But who here is even THINKING about --- much less seriously considering actually IMPLEMENTING --- such “esoterica”? No, “we” are FAR too busy dithering about mere “politics” --- and now about the ECONOMIC “meltdown”! (And really, in connection with THAT disaster, most people over here seem to only be FOOLISHLY trying to do nothing more than re-establish “Business as Usual”!)

The ONLY way I, for one, would support any further FISSION dinosaur being built today would be if the meltdown-proof design were used. So far as I know, all the noises being made are for additional "conventional" designs. So I have expressed to my OWN Congressional representatives my OPPOSITION to the additional unit being proposed by Ameren UE here in Missouri. I suggest other folks elsewhere might wish to do likewise.
April 23, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Matt said…
The opposition to nuclear only appears to be "far left" when you are viewing it from the far right.

Think about that, guy.

Even if a reactor could be expected to perform 100% reliably under normal circumstances, we still have the waste to deal with. The problems of disposing with nuclear waste are mammoth, and the risks are great. Really, everything that has to do with the fuel is incredibly dangerous.

That, in addition to the fact that we would still be dependent on foreign energy. I believe canada and south africa are the only producers of fuel, correct? (I am too lazy to check ATM)

We need to spend our tax dollars on researching/implementing clean, renewable, SAFE energy.
April 24, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more